05 March 2008

A few days ago, Hillary--clearly out of idea-related ammo--floated yet another attack against Barack Obama, but with an added twist:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

You heard that right, not only is she a better choice, but seemingly, the GOP candidate is, too. Surely that must've been a slip, though. Who would actually think it wise to set up the frontrunning candidate for such a line of attack in the general election?

Apparently, Hillary, who made the rounds on the teevee repeating virtually the same thing on three different occasions:

"[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

"Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."

Un. Real.

If she can't win, she has no qualms about making absolutely sure that no other Democrat can, either. Hillary and her campaign have long been dismissing the states--and, consequently the voters--that backed Obama as being irrelevant. That said, this latest line of attack proves, unequivocally, that Hillary is truly beholden to a constituency of one. This country can ill-afford such 2nd grade behavior at this stage of the game.

For anyone interested, this is from "the speech he gave in 2002" that Hillary claims is the only thing Barack Obama brings to the table:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

With judgment and foresight like that, he's bringing a hell of a lot more than you, Hill.